Delhi’s Administration As The Tail Wagging The Dog

Context: Critical analysis of the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021.

Evolution of governance in Delhi

• Move towards centralisation after Independence: Article 1 of the Indian Constitution reads, “India that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” 
  • India had four kinds of states (A, B, C and D), with the last two being administered by Chief Commissioners or Lieutenant Governor. The reason for such centralisation was – 
    •  It was felt that if Delhi (Part C) became a part of any constituent State of the Union, that State would sooner or later acquire a predominant position in relation to other States.
    • Deemed to be vital in the national interest as the recognition of full Statehood would increase conflicts between State and Centre.
  • In 1956, when the Constitution of India was amended to implement the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, Delhi was put under Union Territories.
• Move towards representation: Progress towards Statehood.
  • In 1951, a Legislative Assembly was created with an elected Chief Minister. Chaudhary Brahm Prakash be came to the ?rst Chief Minister in 1952.
  • The Delhi Administration Act, 1966 provided for a limited representative Government in Delhi through a Metropolitan Council.
  • In 1987, the Balakrishnan Committee said that Delhi should continue to be a Union Territory but that there must be a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers.
  • Based on this report, the Constitution (69th) Amendment Act and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT) Act, 1991 were passed.

Criticisms of the Bill

• Reduces elected government to a mere vestigial organ: And elevates centrally appointed LG to the position of a Viceroy with plenipotentiary powers. 
• The expression ‘Government’ referred to in any law to be made by the Legislative Assembly shall mean Lieutenant Governor.
• Unrepresentative administration: Delhi ruled by an appointed LG, who can only be changed if the rest of the country decides to change the Central government. 
• Constitutional challenges: Interpretation cannot ignore the conscience of the Constitution; legislations will be challenged in courts. A SC Bench in 2018 has ruled that – 
• As opposed to centralism, a balanced federal structure mandates that the Union does not usurp all powers and the States enjoy freedom without any unsolicited interference from the Central Government with respect to matters which exclusively fall within their domain.”
• Interpretation cannot ignore the conscience of the Constitution.